The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1887-08-05
ala. DAVIS or PROHIBITION


Co. +. r. Lubbock:
NV Dear Friend-Yours of the
10Th iuztaLt with its Enclosures has
been received.
I have heret olOre declined to an
swer any of the inquiries made for
my opinion on the constitutional
amendment now pending in Texas.
My reason tor not replying was an
nnwillinguess to enter INTO a con-
sroversy in which ms friends in lex
as staod arrayed against each other.
In deVarting from the rule hereto
fore observed, trust that IL will
not be an unwarrantable intrusion.
Realed in creed Of Democracy,
4nv faith in its lenets has grown with
lis growth, and 1 adhere tO-the
maxim that The world is governed
too much.
When our fathers achieved their
. independence the cornerstone OF the
government they constructed was
individual liberty, and the social
ssrpahiza tons they established were
not for the surrender, but for the
protection of natural rights. For
this governments were esta bllshed
deriving their Just powers from the
consent of the governed. This was
not to subject themselves to the will
Of the majority, as appears from the
fact II at each community inserted
in IT'S Fundamental law a bill OF
rights 10 guard the inalienable priv
ileees of the individual.
There was then a two-fOld pur-
90 in government, protection and
prevention against trespass 10y the
sIong upAn the weak, the many on
the few.
The world had long suffered from
the expressions OF government
under he pretext Of ruling by di-
VINE right, and excusing the inva-
sion into private and domestic affairs
on the plea of paternal care fer the
morals and good order Of the people.
Our sires rejected all such preten-
Slons. their ystem being: Govern
ment by the people for the people,
and resting ON the basis of natural,
lnahenable rights. Upon the basis
of these general propositions L will
briefly answer the inquiry in regard
10 the Prohibition amendment at
issue.
''Be We temperate in all things"
was WIS Injunction, and would
apply to intolerance as wei as to
drunkenness. That the intemperate
use of intoxicating liquors is an evil
few, ifany, would DENY.
That 1t is at the root Of many So
cial disorders is conceded, but then
the qu estion arises, what is the APP
propriate remedy. aud what the pres
ent necessity? To destroy individual
liberty and moral responsibility
wouli be to eradicate one evil by
the substitution Of another, which
1t is submitted would be mo-e fatal
than that for which it was offered
a. remedy. The abuse, and not
the use IF sumulants, 1t must be
G mfssscd, is the evil to de remedied,
Then it clearly folio that action
should clearly be directed against
the abuse rather than the use. Ii
drunkenness be the cause of dlsOr-
der and crime, why not pronounce
drunkenness itself to be crime and
attach 70 it proper and adequate
penalties? If it be objected that the
penalties could not be enforced, that
l. an admission that popular opinion
would15e opposed to the law; but II
it be true that iuries could not be
impaneled who woul d convict so de-
graded or iminal as a drunkard; II
necessarily follows that statutory
Prohibition against the sale and use
OF intnxicants would be a dead letter
The next branch of the inquiry IL
asto the present necessity.
I might appeal to men not as old as
myself to sus ain the assertion that
the conviyial use of intoxIcants'
aud the occurrence of druukenn ess
had become less frequent within the
last twenty years than it was before.
The refining influences # eduea-
ton and Christianity may be bred
tied with this result. Why not allow
these blessed handmaidens Of virtue
and morally to continue unembarras-
sd their civllizing work. The ParN
lies to this discussion in your State
have no doubt brought forward the
statistical facts IN regard to the
effect produced in other States by
thls effort to control morals by leg
islation. anu will not cucumber
khis lie ter by any reference to those
facts.
You have already revision for
local prohibition. IfIr has proved
The wooden horse in which dis
guised enemy TO State sovereignty
AS the guardian of individual liber>
r was introduced, let it be a war
nmr that the progressive marco
urobably be from village to State
and from State to United States
a govei nnemt supervision and
naterIstty instead OF he liberty the
Heroes of 1876 left as a legacy to
their posteIlty. Impelled by the
Infection aud gratitude | feel for the
f,eople Of Texas. and the belief that
i great question of American policy
n involved in the issue you have be-
fore you, the silence | had hoped 70
observe has been broken. IT the Ut
terance shall avail anything for good
Il. an ,,,,, upYeatp me for the obiurs